http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/02/29/f ... and-mauss/
This, of course, was in the wake of the Randy Bott Fiasco. As you'll recall, there were a number of people calling for Bott to be tossed under the bus, and Dr. Peterson used his "bully pulpit" to weigh in on the matter, saying that, among other things, Bott should be pitied for the treatement he was receiving in the media. In the "Comments" section of BCC, DCP wrote this:
(Entry #28):
Dan Peterson wrote:I hope I made it clear enough in a post on my own new little blog, last night, that I strongly disapprove of the remarks attributed to Professor Bott by the Washington Post:
http://dcpsicetnon.blogspot.com/
That may allow me to suggest that perhaps we shouldn’t be so hasty in calling for his head. There’s no sign of malice or hate in what he’s quoted as saying. Moreover, there’s no guarantee that what he said has been accurately represented.
He’s apparently now claiming that the Post reporter distorted his comments. Whether that’s true or not, I can’t judge. But, based on my own experiences with reporters over the past quarter of a century, I think it’s entirely plausible, even probable, that he’s telling the truth. (And I said so in my blog entry last night.)
Let’s please not forget that charity is particularly important and relevant — and perhaps only meaningful — in situations where we’re inclined to feel that it’s strictly undeserved
The good Dr. Mauss noticed these remarks, and decided to weigh in and use the occasion to remind Dan Peterson that his own advice often goes unheeded:
Armand Mauss: Entry 73 wrote:I agree with Dan Peterson (#28) about the need for charity in cases like these, and I look forward to seeing the same charitable spirit obtain in the reviews appearing in the Mormon Studies Review (formerly FARMS Review), of which Dan is the capable editor. Such charity has not, alas, always obtained in reviews there (and elsewhere in LDS apologetics) whenever the authors under review have been found to be dabbling in heterodoxy or questioning the received wisdom. As distressed as we might be over Bott’s comments, calls to throw him under the bus in this instance would ill behoove any of us who can remember the treatment (official and otherwise) of those who got into trouble during the 1960s and 1970s for saying exactly the same things that now represent Church policy. “Institutional correctness” for Mormons is something like political correctness in the culture at large — that is, it depends a lot on timing!
Wow! This only serves to reinforce what I have often said elsewhere--i.e., that the nasty tone in the Review has worked to alienate a lot of people in Mormon Studies. And now we have somebody as eminent and distinguished as Armand Mauss calling Dan Peterson on the carpet? This is really praiseworthy stuff; one can only hope that other top Mormon scholars will step forward to publicly condemn the decades of attack- and smear-pieces that have littered the pages of the FARMS Review.
Naturally, DCP quickly piped up in response to this:
DCP wrote:I certainly don’t want to derail this thread from, among other things, calls to denounce, publicly humiliate, and fire Randy Bott, but, in response to Armand Mauss (#73, above), whose work I’ve appreciated since I read my first piece from him when I was a high school student in California . . .
The FARMS Review (now the Mormon Studies Review) has long been known for its spirited, often ironic, frequently humorous, and sometimes quite . . . umm, frank style. Some really like it; some really hate it. In my view, it has rarely if ever crossed the line into genuine mean-spiritedness. (Some will disagree,, which is their prerogative.) Brutality’s not my style, and, on the rare occasions when anything has been submitted that I thought crossed the line, I’ve either edited the offending passage out or rejected the submission altogether.
That’s my story, and I’m sticking with it.
What a strange--though utterly expected and typical--response. Of course he failed to edit out "Metcalfe is Butthead." And Mauss said nothing of "brutality." He merely said that Dan ought to have been more charitable, ala this:
DCP's Own Words from Earlier in the BCC Thread wrote:Let’s please not forget that charity is particularly important and relevant — and perhaps only meaningful — in situations where we’re inclined to feel that it’s strictly undeserved
Like with Brent Metcalfe? Or Dan Vogel? Or Loftes Tryk? Or Rod Meldrum? Or, heaven forbid, with yours truly? What does DCP actually believe--that people most deserve charity when he's the least inclined to give it? Or that "stupid books deserve to be ridiculed"?
In any case, I just want, once again, to call for a virtual round of applause for Armand Mauss, who has shown here just what a mensch he is. Kudos to you, Prof. Mauss!